I'm not stopping Yadda from using religious text, I'm saying that it must come with discussion to explain it being there, or that it must be used as a justification of claims being made. But stand alone religious text which speaks more to righteousness than it does to the meaning of God, which surely is more encompassing than that, looks like and feels like preaching.

I'm not stopping Yadda from using religious text, I'm saying that it must come with discussion to explain it being there, or that it must be used as a justification of claims being made. But stand alone religious text which speaks more to righteousness than it does to the meaning of God, which surely is more encompassing than that, looks like and feels like preaching.

Moreover, just because we can assume it's purpose does not mean it was put there for that assumed purpose. Clarity gentlemen. That's what I'm after and Yadda is an articulate and reasonable person who is more than capable of clarity.

Ironic that the most strident of moderators are you, Sappho, and Abu...

Absolutes stand at the ends of an arc... Leaning towards each other.

So you would prefer that the religious be allowed speak with biblical text rather than their own voice or a mix of the two? You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?

This is as much for his benefit as it is for the boards benefit. If you haven't noticed, when people jump to ill conceived conclusions, they start shooting off at the mouth about things irrelevant to the real intent of the original poster. And that is disheartening for the original poster and the board in general.

The more clarity we give to our intent, the less trolling and flaming that will result on what is a topic for all concerned held with great meaning and feeling.

You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?

You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?

I cannot save people from themselves... And neither can you.

And I no longer presume to think that I can.

We are not talking about saving people from themselves. We are talking about protecting people in general from those who are the lowest form of forumite. That means acting in accordance with the rules. No point stirring up a bitch storm because flaming has been introduced, if the person I am defending does not abide by the rules and ensure their intent is known.

Moreover, if we want for a flame free, troll free space in which to discuss these heart felt things, then I have to follow those rules and I depend of others doing likewise.

You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?

I cannot save people from themselves... And neither can you.

And I no longer presume to think that I can.

We are not talking about saving people from themselves. We are talking about protecting people in general from those who are the lowest form of forumite.

Are you saying Yadda has gone, within an hour from being, in your mind, (quote) an articulate and reasonable person (unquote) to (quote) the lowest form of forumite (unquote) ?

You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?

I cannot save people from themselves... And neither can you.

And I no longer presume to think that I can.

We are not talking about saving people from themselves. We are talking about protecting people in general from those who are the lowest form of forumite.

Are you saying Yadda has gone, within an hour from being, in your mind, (quote) an articulate and reasonable person (unquote) to (quote) the lowest form of forumite (unquote) ?

Did your previous patronising conceal your contempt for Yadda?

No. I'm not saying that at all and quite frankly, I think that is pretty obvious. You cannot be reasonable on the one hand and the lowest form of forumite on the other. It doesn't make sense. Also, there were two classes of people identified in that sentence; people in general and the lowest form of forumite. So if it is that Yadda has already been tagged as reasonable, then he cannot be the lowest form of forumite and therefore must belong to that other class which was people in general. Moreover, if you read my response in context with the previous responses instead of reading it as a stand alone statement, there is no way that Yadda can be confused with the lowest forum of forumite.

You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?

I cannot save people from themselves... And neither can you.

And I no longer presume to think that I can.

We are not talking about saving people from themselves. We are talking about protecting people in general from those who are the lowest form of forumite.

Are you saying Yadda has gone, within an hour from being, in your mind, (quote) an articulate and reasonable person (unquote) to (quote) the lowest form of forumite (unquote) ?

Did your previous patronising conceal your contempt for Yadda?

No. I'm not saying that at all and quite frankly, I think that is pretty obvious. You cannot be reasonable on the one hand and the lowest form of forumite on the other. It doesn't make sense. Also, there were two classes of people identified in that sentence; people in general and the lowest form of forumite. So if it is that Yadda has already been tagged as reasonable, then he cannot be the lowest form of forumite and therefore must belong to that other class which was people in general. Moreover, if you read my response in context with the previous responses instead of reading it as a stand alone statement, there is no way that Yadda can be confused with the lowest forum of forumite.

"If god doesn't exist, everything is permitted - Dostoyevsky" - so how can you have complaints on an atheist forum??

If a moral code doesn't exist, everything is permitted. - Not Dostoyevsky, but still true.

You gotta love those lightning strikes when people do what is not permitted though.

Quote:

We dont know if every person perceives colors in the same way. Big Deal.

muso 2013

I love the sleight of hand. Atheism doesn't include a moral code, so no Atheists have a moral code.

It's about as logical as saying that coffee itself doesn't contain sugar, so coffee drinkers must drink coffee without sugar. If you add a moral system to Atheism, it's no longer Atheism. It's Humanism - meh!

If you add sugar to coffee, it becomes a mixture of coffee and sugar. It's no longer coffee.

Pssst - Dostoyevsky exaggerated, and I'll tell you something else - He knew that he was exaggerating.